Standing Committee A

[Mr. Kevin Hughes in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

David Jamieson: On a point of order, Mr. Hughes. I would be grateful if you would allow me to make a short statement to clarify two matters that arose during our proceedings on Thursday 20 January.
First, during a debate on clause 1 I said that the national safety camera programme had received £120 million in fixed penalty receipts, of which £100 million had been used to cover the cost of camera operations and the remaining £20 million returned to Hansard—[Interruption.] Returned to the Treasury, I am sorry. No wonder the Hansard reporter is looking so well attired today! Having revisited the Hansard report, I see that I also gave the impression that the figures were for the last financial year. What I meant to say was that they were announced in the last financial year. The figures were published in 2004, but they cover the period from 2000-01 to 2002-03. The fixed penalty receipts were a total of £99 million, and recoverable expenditure on camera enforcement was £79 million. The bit that I got right was the amount returned to the Treasury, which was £20 million. I hope that that clarifies the matter. The amounts are on record in ''The national safety camera programme: Three-year evaluation report'', published last year. I am certain that it is in the Library and available for those who want to see it. 
Secondly, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether local highways authorities in England had the powers to introduce variable speed limits. I said that I thought they did, but that I would check. I can confirm that they have such powers under section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. 
I am grateful to you for allowing me to clarify those two matters, Mr. Hughes.

Clause 7 - Driving record

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, leave out paragraph (c).

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out paragraph (e).
Government amendment No. 62.

Christopher Chope: I begin by thanking the Minister for raising those two issues on a point of order. It is still clear that £20 million could have been reinvested in road safety in that period, but instead it went to the  Treasury—not to Hansard. The Minister would have more excuse for muddling up the Treasury and Hansard if he had attended the splendid Chamber of Shipping dinner last night, to which he had been invited. However, sadly, I think for the third time in as many years, the ministerial invitee failed to attend. I am told that the organisers knew yesterday that the Minister would not attend. The excuse given was that he was so busy with the Bill. Opposition Members, and I include in that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), must take some credit for the fact that our incisive amendments are keeping the Minister so busy burning the midnight oil that he does not have time to attend such dinners.
It is interesting that the Government amendment has crept in just in time only because we adjourned when we did on Thursday. I am glad that the Government have been able to table it today, instead of having to leave it until Report, as happens with so many Government amendments. 
Amendment No. 25 is a probing amendment to discover why the Government feel the need to include fixed penalty clerks as a specific breed of person who can have access to all our driving records. It has always been my understanding that they work for the Court Service. In that case, surely they should be covered by paragraph (a), which refers to courts. In accordance with their terms and conditions of service fixed penalty clerks will no doubt have to sign confidentiality statements and be subject to the discipline of the Court Service. I see no problem with that. 
Constables are covered by paragraph (b). Setting up a separate category for fixed penalty clerks seems to widen the ambit unnecessarily. Will the Minister tell us whether he has it in mind to privatise the fixed penalty clerk service—for example, so that separate, free-standing contractors can deal with the issues—and why that category of people will be elevated as set out in paragraph (c)? 
The other amendment covers paragraph (e), which deals with other prescribed persons. I suspect that in looking at how to deal with that amendment, the Minister's advisers decided that there was a lacuna in the clause which needed attention anyway, hence the Government amendment. Who do the Government have in mind for the category of other prescribed persons? That raises a real issue about misuse of official information. It was only last weekend that the Daily Echo, a splendid newspaper that circulates in my constituency, carried a report of a special constable who had been convicted of gaining access to Criminal Records Bureau information. She had used her position as a special constable to find out more about the people who worked alongside her in her main job as a pump attendant at a petrol filling station. 
The fact that a special constable was able to access and use that information is concerning enough, but she was brought to justice largely because it was possible to track down the person who used the information; there are specific lines of responsibility, and a limited number of people have access to Criminal Records Bureau information. I am concerned that if information on driving records can be accessed so  easily by people in officialdom, it will be difficult to track down the perpetrator of any misuse of that information. Without the effective deterrent of detection, it is likely that the misuse of such information will continue to increase. 
Although my example concerns someone with their own motive for gaining access, perhaps out of spite or simple interest, people who access such information could use it for their own profit by providing it to the press and so on. It would be unhealthy if a whole host of fixed penalty clerks and other prescribed persons spent their day trawling through the records to see whether they could find anything interesting about anybody, which they might be able to supply to the press for profit. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of our concerns about the clause.

David Jamieson: Subsection (2) sets out those persons who may have access to information in a person's driving record. Amendment No. 25 seeks to remove the fixed penalty clerks from that list. The position of fixed penalty clerk is not new; it was first set out—possibly when the hon. Member for Christchurch was a Minister in the Department—in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The people who have been doing that job for the past 16 or 17 years operate under the protocol and the systems pertaining to their office.
The role of the fixed penalty clerk is especially important when conditional offers are issued for speeding offences detected by speed cameras. In such cases, the offender delivers his or her licence and counterpart direct to the fixed penalty clerk for inspection. The clerk will inspect the counterpart to ensure that the imposition of penalty points would not take the driver up to 12 points or more, thereby requiring a court appearance with a view to the person being disqualified. As the clerks need to inspect the driver's licence and counterpart, they need to have access to information held on a person's driving record. I am sure that there is a procedure for dealing with anyone who trawls through the records and tries to misuse information in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested, although that is not dealt with in the Bill. Nothing has been brought to my attention on that. 
Clause 9 introduces a new system of endorsement for all drivers based on the inspection of the driving record rather than the counterpart. If fixed penalty clerks could not access information held on driving records, someone else would have to make the necessary checks, which would of course create additional burdens elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman often talks about trying to cut the burden of administration and bureaucracy, but there would be more bureaucracy if clerks could not access that information. 
Amendment No. 26 seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe that other persons may have access to information held on a driving record. We expect it to be up to five years before the new system of endorsement for all drivers introduced by clause 9 can commence. It will take that time to create the necessary links between the police, the courts and the DVLA. In addition, clause 9 and schedule 3 remove references to  the counterpart from legislation, with the result that the counterpart will no longer have any statutory function. It will take the DVLA up to five years to establish alternative procedures for all the counterpart's other functions. 
We have tried to identify all the persons who, at this stage, we envisage being required to access the information held on the driving record, but, when we commence the new system of endorsement in a few years, it may become apparent that others require access if the system is to work, hence the reference to ''other prescribed persons'' in subsection (2)(e). 
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have any ambition to privatise any part of the service. I am not aware of any such proposals, although his party last week suggested privatising a large number of Government organisations, including, I think, the DVLA, the Driving Standards Agency and many other organisations that come under the auspices of my Department. He may want to revisit his comments in light of that. 
I will speak briefly to amendment No. 62. In drafting the Bill, we noticed that there is an omission in proposed new section 97A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In that Act, unlike the Road Traffic Act 1988, the word ''prescribed'' is not defined as ''prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State''. That may be an omission in the Act, but it was certainly an omission of ours not to spot it. The amendment will correct that by explaining that other persons will be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, and that the Committee will support amendment No. 62.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will want to say something on clause stand part about the provisions of paragraph (e) as it is to be amended. The Minister said that the role of fixed penalty clerks is already established in legislation. However, the question that I put to him, which I do not think he has answered, concerned the fact that paragraph (a) refers to ''courts'', which are buildings, but the provision relates to people employed by the Court Service. My understanding is that fixed penalty clerks are employed by the service, in which case they should be covered by paragraph (a). If they are employed by the police, they would not be covered by paragraph (b) because they are not constables.
I do not want to insult anybody who is a fixed penalty clerk, but it seems to be a relatively low-level appointment. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified, not necessarily today, the terms and conditions of service. At present clerks can check the individual counterpart only to see whether it has nine points on it or 12. The provision would give them the power to look at the driving records of everybody in the country, which is a different order of authority. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay our concerns that fixed penalty clerks may not be of sufficient seniority to take on that responsibility without being incorporated in the Court Service. 
If the Minister wants to rise again to say something about fixed penalty clerks, that will be helpful; I hope that he will. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Amendment made: No. 62, in clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out 'prescribed persons' and insert 
'persons pre-scribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 (3) The power to make regulations under subsection (2)(e) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. 
 (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under subsection (2)(e) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Jamieson] 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I find the wording of the clause, particularly paragraph (b), rather strange. Why have those who drafted the Bill decided that it should refer only to constables and not to police officers? It creates the bizarre situation that a police constable can lawfully access a driving record, yet a sergeant, an inspector, a chief inspector, a deputy chief constable or a chief constable who did so would be breaking the law. I find that strange. Why does paragraph (b) not refer to a ''police officer''? I should be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
I did not find convincing the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about why paragraph (e) should remain in the clause. The Minister said that it was in case there were a group of people who it was felt should have access to the records, but he was not able to identify the sort of group he had in mind. Will he give us an example of a group of people who, in future, he might feel should have access to driving records?

David Jamieson: The clause inserts new section 97A into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It introduces the concept of a driving record held by the Secretary of State and designed for endorsement of particulars of offences. It will enable a new system to be established allowing fixed penalty notices to be given to drivers who do not have counterpart licences. It is intended that this alternative system will be introduced in two stages. Clause 8 and schedule 2 provide for the first stage of the new system, and clause 9 and schedule 3 provide for the second stage, which introduces the new system of endorsement of driving records for all drivers.
Clause 7 means that the driving record, like the counterpart to the driving licence, will be an official record of a driver's endorsement history, and it will enable fixed penalty notices to be given to drivers who do not have counterpart licences. Subsection (2) specifies those persons who may have access to information held on a person's driving record. The important point for the hon. Member for Christchurch and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is that, in practice, those are the same people who currently have access to information held on the counterpart. The existing law will be replicated in the Bill. Those people include the driver and persons whom the driver authorises to see the information, courts, constables and fixed penalty clerks. The DVLA is putting in place secure electronic and telephonic links to ensure that the information is available, and those links should be in place by the end of 2007.

Greg Knight: Is the Minister really saying that if I am stopped for speeding by a police sergeant who then accesses my record, I could bring a private prosecution because he has no right to do so? It seems incredible to me that ''constable'' is used in the clause and not ''police officer''.

David Jamieson: Sadly, the right hon. Gentleman will not have that defence available to him, because the reference to ''constable'' appears in all legislation going back a long way—probably before my time in the House, but certainly before the right hon. Gentleman's time. It is a standard reference in legislation to the police; it is not unique to this Bill.
The hon. Member for Christchurch asked about the role of the fixed penalty clerks. They are employed by their courts, and their role has been specifically provided for in legislation that predates not only this Government but that of 1992. I think that it comes from the hon. Gentleman's time, and I was rather hoping that he would tell us more about it. It has been included in previous legislation, and we must replicate it in the Bill, so that cross-referencing can take place.

Adrian Flook: The Minister may know, as it is in his next-door county, that Taunton Deane magistrates court looks after the fixed penalty points system for the whole of Avon and Somerset. Does that mean that there are fixed penalty  clerks based only at Taunton Deane magistrates court and nowhere else within the Avon and Somerset magistrates court service?

David Jamieson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed information about the court service in Somerset or Devon for that matter, but I am sure that if he cares to inquire of the appropriate Department it will be able to provide him with that information.

Greg Knight: I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response. The fact that reference has been made to ''a constable'' in the past is not a satisfactory answer. It seems to me that the provision could and should be improved by referring to a serving police officer. Will the Minister reflect on that between now and Report? It is odd that only one rank of police officer will be able to access the records.

David Jamieson: All I can say is that I am satisfied that this Bill follows the example of previous legislation, going back a long way, in referring to ''a constable''. That term is not just enshrined in the law, but has habitually been used in practice in the system. Far be it from me to come here and overturn many years of history.

Greg Knight: You sound like a Conservative.

David Jamieson: Oh, thank you.

David Kidney: May I just help the Minister by pointing out that ''constable'' is an office, not a rank? Every police officer is a constable, right up to the top one, who retains the name in the title ''chief constable''.

David Jamieson: Where would we be without my hon. Friend? I am grateful to him for his enormous assistance, and with that I hope that hon. Members will accept the clause.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Unlicensed and foreign drivers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I want to ask the Minister a question. There is a reference in the clause to a person who is not the holder of a licence. What is the status of the document that is called an international driving permit? I have never held one; I have driven in other parts of Europe on my UK driving licence, but I understand that if I wish, I can apply for an international driving permit. If a person produces one of those in the UK, would it be deemed to be a licence under the clause?

David Jamieson: The clause gives effect to schedule 2, which we shall come to shortly. The clause and schedule introduce a new system of endorsement for  unlicensed and foreign drivers who do not hold a counterpart to the driving licence. That will bring them into the fixed penalty system. The clause enables enforcers to check the driving records of such drivers when issuing a fixed penalty, removing the need for the counterpart to be checked. Bringing those drivers within the fixed penalty system will make it easier to take action against them should they offend. Furthermore, the threat of being issued with a fixed penalty will provide an increased deterrent.
The clause mainly deals with those who do not have a licence or anything that can be checked. The police are able to check a driving record by using their computer, which is linked to the DVLA computer, without having to examine a counterpart. Information can be put on that record and checked in the future so that even someone with no licence—who can get away with it at the moment because no record is kept—can be checked. 
The international driving permit has to be presented with the foreign licence to be valid. To use the permit, one has to have a licence from one's country of origin. There may be those who cannot produce the licence at all, but if they have a permit they would have had to produce a licence at some stage, so they must have one. The clause deals with those who do not have the counterpart, which would be foreign drivers who did not have a licence at all.

Christopher Chope: The Minister seems to be setting up a bureaucratic system that will be replaced by a super-efficient, computerised system. At present, if one shows a police officer or a local court a counterpart or old-fashioned licence, it is apparent from it what the status of the person's driving record is. Clause 8 establishes a system for dealing with those who do not have counterpart licences. As I understand the notes, the only reason for introducing the clause is a bizarre decision by the European Commission in 2000. Paragraph 32 of the notes says that we are
''obliged . . . to make this change following a complaint . . . by a Dutch licence holder who was resident in the UK but did not possess a counterpart to her Community licence. Having committed a driving offence, she was obliged to be prosecuted in court, which led to her receiving a fine higher than the fixed penalty would have been and the imposition of court costs. She argued that the fixed penalty system was discriminatory against European Community licence holders in general. The Commission upheld the complaint and the Government undertook to make the necessary legislative changes to put an end to the discrimination.'' 
It seems inherent in that paragraph that the Government undertook to do that in 2000. It is now 2005. The Government seem, by their reaction, to have demonstrated that they do not consider it a top priority. 
Will the Minister admit that the provision is being introduced to address that problem and that it will create more bureaucracy rather than less? If, as he said, it is to have effect from 2007, seven years after the European Commission ruling, and to be replaced by a new system in 2010, is it worth the candle? I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on whether the provision is a cover for the fact that we are being forced  to change our law but are reluctant to do it, and the Minister is trying to justify that change for other reasons.

David Jamieson: I can bring some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. No new bureaucracy is being created. The record already exists with the DVLA, but we needed to enshrine it in law so that the counterpart is no longer needed. I have one here for the Committee's perusal. The provision was partly triggered by the case of the Dutch licence holder who took the issue to the European Court, but the new system covers not just that lady and anybody else from another European country who may not have a counterpart, but others such as those who have no driving record—in other words, no licence. The case may have been a stimulus, but it has helped us to take action and remove some of the bureaucracy. In years to come the police will not need the counterpart, which is bureaucratic and cumbersome, to check a person's driving record at the side of the road or in relation to any penalty that has been imposed.

Christopher Chope: Is it not the case that if those of us with old-fashioned driving licences, like me, change our licence, we are given a counterpart, which in itself will be made redundant? Why can people with old-fashioned licences not keep them until 2009 or 2010, when the counterpart will be phased out? Why replace our licence with a counterpart that is about to become redundant?

David Jamieson: People have to change their licence if they change address and the address on the licence is no longer accurate. One of the reasons why I have the nice sparkling new licence and the counterpart is because I changed address and very properly informed the DVLA of that. Eventually, some of the bureaucracy will be phased out, but we had to enshrine in law the driving record that can be accessed. It is currently on the computer system, but needs to be placed in law as accessible by the enforcing agencies. That is what the provisions are about. Eventually, there will be a phasing out, but that will be in some years to come. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the meantime he will be able to keep that nice old green licence for a few more years.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 9 - All drivers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: The Minister referred to the phasing out of licences. As the clause refers to all drivers, I just want to ask him a question about licences. There is a move in the European Union to restrict all driving licences to a term of five years and to require the renewal of eye tests and health checks. That runs contrary to the system that we have in force, whereby most drivers have a licence issued until they reach retirement age. Will he place on record—I hope that he will—his objection to the moves emanating from Europe and will he confirm that the British Government are not about to sign up to the Euro-idea of very short-term licences?

David Jamieson: The clause gives effect to schedule 3, which we will come to in a moment. The clause and the schedule introduce a new system of endorsement for all drivers, which will be commenced at a later date than clauses 7 and 8 and schedule 2. When issuing a fixed penalty, enforcers will be able to check a driver's endorsement history by accessing the driving record and not by having to check the counterpart to the driving licence, as the law currently requires. As a result, the counterpart will no longer have any statutory function. Consequently, much of schedule 3 is concerned with the removal of all references to the counterpart from legislation.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the current licence in this country—and in many other European countries—gives a person who has passed their test a long period in which they do not have to be subjected to a further test or any sort of medical tests. We ask for self-certification from the older age group for eyesight and other medical conditions. Anybody who develops a serious medical condition has an obligation to inform the appropriate agency. Sometimes medical checks are undertaken, but that does not affect the majority of drivers. 
There has been a discussion on this issue in Europe and one of the proposals was to have the driving licence renewed at more frequent intervals; five and 10 years were suggested. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have resisted that most strongly. We have done so because we know that the people who are at the greatest risk of having a collision are those who have just passed their driving test and are in the first one or two years of driving. Younger—or at least newer—drivers who have collisions tend to be in those early days. The longer people have been driving, the fewer collisions they have. They become more experienced. 
Some other issues have been raised with us. For example, we test cars after three years, or every year, but often, because of their servicing history, they do not need testing. In this country, few collisions happen because the vehicle is in poor condition. In fact, 95 per cent. of collisions occur because of driver error or deficiency, not the state of the road or of the vehicle. Some people argue that we should test the driver more often, rather than testing the car. We are not persuaded about more regular testing for drivers—certainly not on a five-year spectrum—because experience shows that the more experience a driver has, the fewer collisions he or she has.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for what he just said, but does he not accept that the greatest cause of accidents are those who do not have driving licences? Far too many people drive without a licence. Recently, a case was reported in the press of a girl aged 12 who, on Christmas day, was able to drive from Swindon through the Wiltshire countryside without attracting the attention of any police officer—probably because there were none around—before eventually being caught outside Reading. Obviously, that girl was an absolute menace on the roads and did not have a driving licence.
Given all the available new technology, why is it not possible to have a driving licence that would operate as an ignition lock, so that it would not be possible to start a car without having the driving licence of the driver? Those of us who have Sky television need a Sky viewing card to watch it. Later in the Bill, we will talk about alco-locks. Why is it not possible to have an ignition system for cars that is triggered by someone with a valid driving licence and which could not be triggered by someone who did not have a driving licence? Perhaps the Minister does not have an answer at the moment, but, to demonstrate that we are a constructive Opposition who are always trying to think of new ideas in line with developing technology, I thought that I would throw that into the debate as part of my challenge to the Minister. 
Obviously, recently qualified drivers have a worse driving record than more experienced drivers such as the Minister and myself, but the biggest menace are those who do not have driving licences; those who have never bothered to pass a test or are driving while disqualified or under age. I do not know whether the Minister wants to respond to what, if I may so myself, is an imaginative solution. I am sure that, even if the Minister does not respond, someone from a European agency or the like will consider the debate and say, ''That's the answer. We must have a centralised system throughout Europe.'' I think I have said enough.

Greg Knight: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that he has a fertile imagination. I do not want the Committee to think that his suggestion is agreed and approved Conservative policy. Someone with three endorsements for speeding who put their licence in the ignition would find, under my hon. Friend's suggestion, that the V8 engine would run on four cylinders only to slow the driver down. As the owner of more than one vehicle, his was not a suggestion that I would welcome. If I were moving my vehicles around the yard, I would have to stop one vehicle to take out the driving licence to start the other. So, while I do not want to dissuade the Minister from considering the suggestion, I hope that he does not feel that it is approved party policy.
Almost as an aside, the Minister made an interesting point that I thoroughly agreed with on the subject of MOTs. The matter is outwith the clause, but if he is considering introducing an MOT that runs for two years, he would get support on this side of the House. It seems to me that, in many cases, the MOT is a mechanism for making garages more money. In 12  months of use, a vehicle does not in my view deteriorate to the extent that it necessarily needs testing.

David Jamieson: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has provided some good counter-arguments to the hon. Member for Christchurch. Far be it from me to intervene in this Conservative spat. The right hon. Gentleman raises a good point. One of the difficulties would be that the driving licence would have to be regularly updated, which would require the licence to be taken to some point where the information could be re-encrypted. If that was not done regularly, the offences would not be kept up to date. Someone who picks up a lot of offences would not be spotted. It is an interesting idea.
I can see the other difficulty. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a penchant for classic cars. There could be an imposition on owners of classic cars to have all these devices fitted. I dare say that many of his good friends in the classic car fraternity—I have some interest in classic cars myself—would have a view on the proposals of the hon. Member for Christchurch. 
The hon. Member for Christchurch made a serious point; unlicensed and uninsured driving is a problem on our roads. In a few years' time, the ANPR system will be able to pick up from the DVLA computer and cross-reference whether the keeper of the vehicle has a current licence. 
In 80 per cent. of cases the keeper is the person who is driving the vehicle. In a couple of years' time it will be possible for a police officer at the side of the road to check the car's MOT record and to know whether it is taxed and insured. He will also be able to check whether the keeper has a current licence. That does not mean that the keeper will be driving that vehicle but, in most cases, it will be that person. That will be a further device for the police to use. They will not have to stop the car but can use this new technology to make those checks in an instant. If it is appropriate they will be able to pull the car over. At present they tend to use good sense, judgment and hunches about a driver. In future they will have that contemporaneous information to assist them to make the decision.

John Thurso: Might I just explore what the Minister just said? He said that when automatic licence plate readers come in, the police will be able to see whether the keeper of the vehicle has a licence. Presumably if they see that he does not they will stop the vehicle; otherwise there is not much point in having that ability. First, what will they do with all the cars that are registered to companies? Secondly, what happens in a case like mine? For historic reasons, I am the keeper of a vehicle that belongs to my wife. I never drive it. It is her car and she drives it. Would she be repeatedly stopped if I did not have a licence?

David Jamieson: First, the technology for the ANPR system is currently under way. It will soon carry more information that can be accessed. The police will still use good sense. They will not stop every vehicle because the keeper does not have a licence. Clearly members of the family could be driving the vehicle. I  do not think that the keeper has to hold a licence. Anyone can be the keeper of a vehicle. If the police had spotted someone who was driving in an unusual way or had committed an offence, this might be additional, good-quality information about the driver to help them decide whether to pull him over.
Obviously if they could see from their computer records that a car was not taxed or insured and the keeper did not have a current licence, it would be blue light time and they would pull the person over. However, the keeper of the vehicle not having a licence would not be sufficient grounds to pull someone over, especially if the vehicle was registered to a company. For example, in the case of a hire vehicle, it is fairly obvious that the person driving it is not the keeper. 
Nevertheless, the additional good-quality information provided will help enforcement agencies gradually squeeze down the number of people who can drive on the road while they are either unlicensed or uninsured and ensure that the rest of us can go about our daily business and drive safely on the roads. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Endorsement: all drivers

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in schedule 3, page 78, line 32, leave out '77(2)' and insert '77A(2)'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 33.

David Jamieson: When Bills are drafted, their complexity occasionally leads to minor drafting errors, and such errors occur in schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 make corrections to schedule 3, which contains legislative amendments enabling endorsement of driving licences rather than counterparts for all offenders. Much of the schedule is concerned with removing all references to the counterpart.
On two occasions—once in paragraph 66 of schedule 3, and once in paragraph 69, both of which amend the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995—reference is made to section 77(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Those references should be to section 77A(2). Section 77 of the 1988 Act is omitted by paragraph 52 of schedule 3 as it relates to the system of endorsement based on the counterpart, which is being replaced. Under the new system of endorsement, it is the driving record, not the counterpart, that will be endorsed, and that is provided for in the new section 77A inserted by paragraph 26 of schedule 2. 
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 seek to correct drafting errors in schedule 4 to the Bill. The schedule relates to the law on driving instruction, and the amendments  concern the ongoing conditions of registration for non-disabled persons and disabled driving instructors, which have been incorrectly cross-referenced. 
I apologise to members of the Committee for those errors, and I hope that, with that explanation, they will accept the amendment. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 31, in schedule 3, page 79, line 39, leave out '77(2)' and insert '77A(2)'.— [Mr. Jamieson.] 
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The Minister says that schedule 3 will not come into operation for some years; I think that he said five or more. However, when it comes into operation, how will the individual driver know what is on his licence? As the Minister said, the licence will effectively be a smartcard containing encrypted information. Unless one has means of de-encrypting such information at home, how will one know, for example, that when a licence is subject to penalty points and sent off to the DVLA, the information is put on the licence accurately?
That is sometimes relevant in the context of totting-up. One cannot be subject to disqualification for 12 points on a licence unless the subsequent offences took place after previous penalties. So it is possible, in certain circumstances, to have 12 points or more on one's licence without being subject to disqualification because of the order in which offences were committed, compared with the order in which the convictions came. 
At present, one can look at one's licence and see the information and, if there is a court appearance, one's adviser can look at the licence outside court. However, what will happen in future in relation to the information on the licences? How will people know that information? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that. 
Later in our scrutiny of the Bill, we will consider whether old driving licences should have to be surrendered. It is implicit in what the Minister has already said that people with old-style driving licences will not have to submit them and exchange them for the brand-new driving licence without a counterpart until that system comes into operation, and that, in the interim, they will not have to change them for the newer licence with the counterpart. I understand that any requirement that there should be a mass return of old licences to the Department will not take effect until schedule 3 is operative.

John Thurso: If one looks at the use of card technology in the financial services industry, one sees that as the technology has become ever more complex, so the ability of people determined to commit fraud has also become more complex. For example, there is a whole battery of crimes to do with bank cards that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago, and there is sophisticated technology for reading and amending those kinds of cards. Has any risk assessment been  carried out in relation to the new licence that will be issued when the licence with counterpart is dropped? Do the Government intend, between now and the introduction of the new licence, to undertake some sort of risk assessment of the opportunity for fraud or criminal behaviour in respect of such cards?

David Jamieson: The hon. Member for Christchurch raised an important issue. The new licence will be a card, and no record will be shown on it. In that respect, it will be similar to a debit or credit card, which shows nothing that one can check. However, one can put a credit or debit card into a machine and enter a PIN code, and it will provide a reading of part or all of one's account. Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, one can now do all one's banking by accessing a computer, including finding out detailed information about the bank account, and even paying bills and transferring money from one account to another. I usually find myself transferring money from my account to my son's account, which is one of the hazards of being a parent.
The systems have not been set up yet, but such things should be equally possible with the new licence. We anticipate that there will be secure systems, similar to the current banking systems, where the user has to put in a series of commands to the computer that only he or she knows about, unless they are foolish enough to share them with others; I certainly do not share those commands with my son. There would be careful encryption of the information, so that only the person entitled to it could access it. 
That would be one method of accessing the information—the individual interrogating the computer using the appropriate information such as PIN numbers, as for a bank account—but there would still be the facility, if someone had forgotten or lost their record, to write to the Department or to make a telephone call. However, with the telephone call, there would have to be a procedure with a series of checks prior to the information being given out, as for a telephone call to one's bank. It would therefore be perfectly possible for someone to make those checks with the new system. 
One downside of the current system is that people lose or misplace their counterparts. I dare say that if I were asked now where my counterpart was, I could find it at home, but I do not instantly know where. I know where my licence is, but I do not instantly know where the counterpart is, and that applies to many people. Proper checks and security will be in place, and people will be able to check, through old as well as new technology, the information on their licence.

Christopher Chope: Will someone be able to check immediately their licence has been endorsed whether the endorsements that have been put on it by encryption accord with what they were told would happen? We know from, for example, from the tax credits system and many other Government initiatives involving new technology that input operators make an enormous number of errors. If an operator makes an error that results in someone having more  endorsements on their licence than the court ordered or than had been agreed, how will the victim of the error find out about it immediately?

David Jamieson: Of course even in the best systems there is always the possibility of human error, and that is true of the present system. Someone could have a record against their name that was incorrect. This measure will allow someone to make an instant check through their computer, by having a telephone conversation or by making a written request for the information. That will allow the person to challenge the information if necessary, as is the case now. Obviously, the DVLA would have to respond to such a challenge.

Christopher Chope: I am really asking whether there will be written confirmation from the DVLA, in the form of a letter, of what has been put on the licence so that the person can see whether it is correct. Most people proceed on the basis that such procedures have been carried out correctly, but unless the DVLA sends out a notice of what has been encrypted on the licence, the licence holder will not be able to know whether it has been endorsed correctly.

David Jamieson: But of course whenever someone commits an offence, it will attract an endorsement on their licence, and paperwork will go backwards and forwards. Certainly if someone has to make a court appearance, they can be fairly sure that their licence has been endorsed. I suppose that it would be perfectly possible for written confirmation to be sent out when the licence is endorsed. I think that it is intended that someone should receive that. As regards the paperwork, I am not familiar with these things, not having picked up many points on my licence so far, but I think that it is fairly clear to someone if they have picked up points. There will be the ability, first, to have confirmation of that. Secondly, someone can check afterwards whether the endorsement has been put on their licence.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 - Financial penalty deposits

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 10, page 9, line 10, at end insert—
'(Za) that the motor vehicle is not registered in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in clause 10, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
'(aa) the person committing the offence is not normally resident in the United Kingdom and'. 
No. 46, in clause 10, page 9, line 23, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert 'European Union'.

Christopher Chope: In addition to moving amendment No. 23, I shall speak to amendment No. 24, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has  something to say about his amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 23 would limit the ambit of clause 10 to vehicles that were not registered in the UK. Amendment No. 24 would limit its ambit to people who were committing an offence or had committed an offence when they were not ordinarily resident in the UK. I tabled those amendments to test why the Government were making the ambit of the financial penalty deposit system set out in the clause much wider than the ostensible justification for it suggests. The justification for the system is that it will enable us to get even with all the foreign lorry drivers who are breaking the UK traffic laws with impunity.
Interestingly, at the helpful briefing provided by the Minister and his officials, it was said that 44,000 offences by foreign vehicle drivers went unpunished in the last year for which figures were available, which gives some idea of the extent of the problem. It was also made clear that nothing in the clause would give immediate relief, because there is nothing in it to ensure that the driver of a lorry that has triggered a speed camera, for example, at a site where nobody is present to stop him, will pay the penalty before he returns to the continent, whence most of the foreign lorries emanate. 
The Government are taking extra powers in the clause, which can be used against UK citizens and residents and people with UK-registered vehicles, ostensibly to deal with the foreign lorry drivers who are breaking our speed limits with impunity and committing other offences against the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. However, we understand that there will not be much opportunity to catch those drivers and that the financial deposit system will be of only limited use. In that case, why are the Government extending the scheme to local residents as well as to foreigners?

John Thurso: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's amendment and I have the same broad questions. Paragraph 39 of the explanatory notes says:
 ''The effect of these provisions is to provide a means of enforcement against offenders who avoid payment . . . by not having a satisfactory address in the United Kingdom.'' 
At the briefing there was mention of 44,000 such offences. I had understood them to be camera offences. The clause will have no impact on anybody trapped by a camera, because they will not be stopped. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. 
The Library briefing says that, broadly speaking, 85 per cent. of offences are now detected by cameras as opposed to the police. If 44,000 represents 85 per cent., something close to 8,000 would represent the remaining 15 per cent. If my maths are right, a £60 fixed payment would produce less than £500,000 in income. We are talking about only a small number of offences and a small amount of money. 
We cannot discriminate against foreigners, however, so any legislation must cover UK citizens too. I am therefore interested in the impact of a deposit  on a UK citizen. If the police stop somebody at present, presumably they try to ascertain an address. If they are satisfied with the address, the person is released. Presumably the clause does not change that: the police will still release them. If the police are not satisfied with the address, they may take the person to a police station to make further inquiries; they will not simply release them. Presumably that will continue. The only change that I can foresee for British people would be in the case of somebody who could not prove their identity but had sufficient cash on them to pay the deposit. It seems to me that somebody who cannot prove their identity but has cash is probably quite a suspicious person, but they appear to be the only ones who will benefit from the clause.

Greg Knight: I rise to speak briefly to amendment No. 46 and to tease out of the Minister his own view about this matter. I broadly welcome clause 10. It is sensible, and I am delighted that it is in the Bill, but it is an odd proposal from a Government who are pro-European. Is the Minister alone in being off message by putting forward such a proposal? The Government want us to sign up to the European constitution, and to get rid of our own currency and join the euro. They have supported giving up the veto in a number of areas and giving police in other European states far more power, in some cases power over citizens of this country.
One could argue that new section 90A(4) adopts a little Englander approach by stipulating that a satisfactory address is only an address in the United Kingdom. Given the Government's pro-European credentials, why is the Minister not proposing that a satisfactory address be any address in the European Union? What he is proposing appears to go against the drift of Government policy in every other area.

David Jamieson: The effect of amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would be, first, to restrict the requirement for a deposit payment to a non-resident offender driving a vehicle registered abroad. Secondly, they would restrict such a requirement to an offender not normally resident in the UK. That would make it much easier for drivers to escape the penalties. The problem is that people without a satisfactory address in this country—that is to say, an address that can be used to find them for enforcement purposes—are able to escape fines. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire knows that our police have no power to check addresses in other parts of Europe or the world, but can act only in the UK. Such persons may be, for example, driving UK-registered cars that they have hired or borrowed temporarily. It is the offender that we are concerned with, not just the vehicle.
Normal residence is also not the right approach. A person might not normally reside here, but have an address that is satisfactory if, for example, they are a frequent visitor. In short, not being normally resident does not mean that penalties cannot necessarily be enforced against a person. However, a satisfactory address is not to be confused with an accommodation address. Our enforcement agencies have experienced problems with offenders who offer accommodation addresses where summonses never get passed on, with  the result that the offenders avoid the penalties and the fines. We wish to ensure that all offenders are punished on the same basis to ensure fairness for everybody. New section 90A(4) adequately defines those offenders required to pay a deposit. 
I turn now to amendment No. 46. There is no effective means available to the enforcement agencies in this country of pursuing non-payment of fines by employing competent authorities in the country of origin of the non-UK resident offender. So, all pre-enlargement EU member states with the exception of ourselves, Finland and the Irish Republic have arrangements similar to the measures introduced by clause 10. The amendment would defeat one of the primary purposes for introducing the provision: the financial penalty deposits. At the moment, some offenders—the majority of them EU nationals, because of our proximity to other countries in the EU—are able to avoid financial penalties simply by leaving the country before they have settled their fines. Our enforcement agencies have no device for following up fines in other countries.

Greg Knight: In view of the co-operation that exists between EU member states in many areas, are not negotiations taking place on the matter? Will the Minister give a precis of the stage we are at in achieving an agreement with our European partners on the problem?

David Jamieson: I cannot go into too much detail, because I would be testing the Committee's patience if I did, but it is true that we are having discussions with our European colleagues about how we can enforce the laws on driving offences throughout the EU. That will take time. The difficulty is that the current laws are so disparate. What is an offence in one country may not be an offence in another, and there are other considerable difficulties.
Moreover, we do not want the EU to have competence in some areas, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want that either. We could find ourselves obliged to have the same traffic laws as other countries, which I would resist. We have a good road safety record in this country and a good record of enforcing the law on the road. I would not want to see that diluted in any way by agreements that reduce the impact of that law enforcement. 
In future, we have to look at the way that police forces share information about vehicles and offenders so that people cannot commit and get away with an offence in one country, then freely move across EU borders to another country. That is not in anyone's interest. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has made a good argument for being pro-European. One of the purposes of being a member of a union is to allow states to work together against that minority of people who may be committing offences on the road, and as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, some of those people may be undertaking other nefarious activities. 
The penalty will allow the police officer to make a judgment about the offence that has been committed, and it will ensure that a person will receive a  punishment based on what they would have received if they had been taken to court and received a penalty point. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that that will have a limited effect in the first instance, but in time, once more of the speed cameras use digital systems rather than wet-film systems, it will be possible for ANPR cameras to pick up some of those vehicles at the ports where they are leaving or entering. We will be able to check on some of those vehicles. If they had been regularly committing offences, the new technology would allow us to pull them over to insist that the penalty was paid, either before they left the country or when they came back into it.

John Thurso: The Minister is making an interesting point. Will he confirm that the technology will be able to read foreign number plates as well as British ones?

David Jamieson: That is the next challenge. The number plates are varied in size and in the information that they carry. Activity is under way to see whether we can recognise the large majority of number plates from foreign countries. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is a considerable challenge to create software that can read number plates from 25 different countries. I am assured that currently the majority of them can be read.
In future, we will be able to carry out enforcement activities at the ports of departure. That is one of the advantages of being an island nation; in some countries, borders are exceedingly difficult to police.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has, as always, been helpful, but I am not sure that he has allayed our concerns about the fact that increasing numbers of foreign drivers are committing speed camera offences with impunity. The Government are doing nothing about that. They could put more traffic police on the roads, targeting vehicles with foreign number plates in the knowledge that their drivers will not be brought to book if they commit road traffic offences detected by camera. It is often difficult for ordinary citizens to read the number plates on foreign vehicles. We need an enforcement clampdown aimed at foreign vehicles. That does not seem to be on the Government's agenda. I fear that the consequence of the clause will be a lot more oppression of individuals in this country who cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the police that they have got what is described as a permanent address; they might have only an accommodation address.
I will not press the matter to a vote because I can envisage circumstances in which the provision might be useful. My constituency, probably like that of many hon. Members, is plagued by the problem of so-called Travellers. In Christchurch, one of these Travellers was recently apprehended by the police, but because the person had no fixed address the police said that the option available to them was to arrest the person, take them to the police station and present them to a magistrates court as soon as possible, which would mean keeping them in custody for many hours. At the court, the person would probably get a rap on the  knuckles and be on their way to commit some more offences. The police decided that in the end they would not bother to arrest the Travellers for the miscellany of road traffic offences of which they seemed, prima facie, guilty. If the Minister had said that he would use the powers to target the problem of those people who call themselves Travellers, but who actually come into our country, cause mayhem and have no regard for the law, I would have a lot more confidence about them than I do at the moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 10, page 12, line 23, at end insert
'provided that such direction is reasonable in the circumstances and does not result in or require the person so directed to pay any costs fees or expenses to any third party as a direct consequence of the direction.'. 
The Minister said that we do not want to have the same traffic laws as Europe. Generally speaking, I agree, although I have to say that when I find myself travelling home on the motorway during a non-rush-hour period, and mine is the only vehicle around, I sometimes wish that we could harmonise our upper speed limits with our partners in France and Germany. 
We welcome the clause, but only if the powers are fairly used. The amendment is intended to ensure that any removal direction imposed on a motorist is reasonable. The clause is a wide one. I refer the Committee to page 11, where it says that a constable has the right to prohibit a person from driving if he has been stopped and fails to make a payment. I can understand why that may be necessary. The constable can prohibit the person from driving on a road 
''any vehicle of which the person was in charge at the time of the offence by giving to the person notice in writing of the prohibition.'' 
So far, so good. However, the provisions go on to say: 
 ''A constable or vehicle examiner may by direction in writing require the person to remove the vehicle to which the prohibition relates . . . to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction''. 
We can understand why that might be necessary. It could well be that the vehicle, in its present position, is causing or may cause an obstruction, so the police officer wants it moved to a particular place. However, when the police make such a direction, it should be fair and should not directly result in the person who has committed an offence being subjected to a huge extra cost. 
I am thinking of a scenario in which a police officer tells the person in charge of a vehicle to remove it to an inner London car compound, which happens to be next to a perfectly acceptable car park that charges £10 a day, whereas the compound charges £80 a day for the storage of vehicles. If a police officer were to make such a direction, the driver who had committed the offence could face storage charges of up to five times the fixed penalty that he has not paid, which would not be reasonable. Most car compounds charge exorbitant fees, and it could well take a driver who had been  arrested for a relatively minor offence three days to get the money to pay the penalty. Why should he have to pay a whopping fee to some profiteering car compound, the effect of which would be to turn a relatively minor financial penalty into a huge burden on him, when he had made only a minor transgression in the law? We must ensure that the powers under the clause, which we welcome, are exercised fairly and reasonably, and that they do not result in an accused person being penalised excessively.

David Jamieson: The clause provides for cases in which people will not pay a deposit by enabling enforcement officers to prohibit the driving of vehicles. In such cases, it may be necessary for the enforcement officer to direct that the vehicle be moved to a place of safety or a place where it will not cause any further problems. We want to avoid situations in which offenders required to pay a deposit simply abandon their vehicles, thereby causing additional costs to enforcement agencies and unnecessary disruption and inconvenience to other road users. Someone with a vehicle of little value could walk away, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab of removing the vehicle and doing whatever is necessary.
The police already have powers to prohibit the use of vehicles on the grounds of roadworthiness, drivers' hours and other offences. They frequently direct drivers to take their vehicle to a place where it can safely be parked until the problem is remedied. That is quite right; some of those vehicles should not be on the road, and the police and the enforcement agencies should not have to pick up the tab. The powers in the clause are based closely on those powers, and the same parking areas will be used for prohibitions that require the payment of a deposit. They are normally close to the checkpoint and generally cause little inconvenience. 
I am a little surprised at the Opposition tabling the amendment. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the taxpayer should pick up the bill if a driver cannot provide an adequate address and will not pay the penalty fine, and the vehicle must be moved from the side of the road to a safe place? I am surprised that the hon. Member for Christchurch did not leap up and say that that was a stealth tax. That is what he usually does in such circumstances. 
The taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab for such offenders. The initial offence may be small, but people who offend in that way should not be able to get away with it. Neither should they be able to place a further burden on the taxpayer. I ask the Committee most emphatically to reject the amendment.

Greg Knight: I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister says, and I do not buy his scenario of there being no alternative but to take a vehicle to an expensive, profiteering car compound. There are many other places where it could be parked while the offender obtained the money. In an area near where I live, where the police regularly undertake checks, there is a perfectly satisfactory lay-by which could be used in such circumstances. In many places there are picnic  sites and other areas where there would be no cost to the defendant of leaving his vehicle in a secure state until he could pay the fixed penalty ticket.

David Jamieson: These powers are now being used by the police. When enforcement is being carried out, usually in relation to HGVs, there is a often a park or compound nearby where the vehicles can be parked. There is no intention of directing them miles away to places where they will incur an excessive cost. The checks are usually set up in places that require the minimum movement of the vehicle. My reason for rejecting the amendment is that the taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab if there are additional costs because the process takes longer than anticipated.

Greg Knight: On the latter point we are at one. I would not wish the taxpayer to pick up the tab either, but as stated in the amendment, I want any removal direction to be reasonable. What the Minister said partly satisfies me as he made it clear that it would not be common practice for an expensive car compound to be used. However, there is a case for stating that the direction must be reasonable, and I want to reflect on the matter before Report.

David Jamieson: There is a complaints system for the police and one for the VOSA inspectors who carry out the inspections and give vehicles directions. There is also an independent complaints officer who can take up those complaints if people feel that they have been unfairly treated. I am told that the latter service has never been used because no one has yet made a complaint.

Greg Knight: I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. If a foreign national, whose English may not be good, falls foul of these provisions, his main concern will be to get back his vehicle and to get home. A complaints procedure is not necessarily the answer to that problem if, having paid three days' excessive storage charges, he has to go through a procedure that may require him to set out his case in writing or to meet someone.
As I was about to say before the Minister intervened, my main concern is that the powers should be used reasonably, which could be done by drafting an amendment with slightly different wording from mine. I want to reflect on what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: In an earlier debate on an amendment in my name, the Minister was helpful in showing sympathy for my point of view about the need for enforcement in the case of the lawlessness of Travellers who use vehicles without regard to the prevailing road traffic laws. When do the Government intend to use the powers in the clause to deal with a situation involving Travellers? Page 69 of the regulatory impact assessment addresses the clause on the basis that it is a means of dealing with offences relating particularly to  commercial vehicles. Page 33 of the Library research paper also says that the intention is to deal with commercial vehicles. It states:
 ''The intention is to introduce the schemes for the commercial sector. No decision has yet been taken about whether to apply the deposit scheme to other motorists without a UK address but the enabling powers would allow this.'' 
In light of the real concern about the growing problem of Travellers, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the powers being taken under the clause are used to deal with that problem, thereby giving the law enforcement authorities an additional string to their bow? That would bring some comfort to hard-pressed communities up and down the country who are fed up to their back teeth with the fact that there seems to be one law for them and another for Travellers. If the Minister cannot give such an assurance I will be very disappointed. I hope that he believes that the discussion in this Standing Committee is sufficient to ensure that the powers are applied to that kind of case. 
I would also be grateful if the Minister could tell us when the main powers in the clause will be introduced. How soon will we see a rebalancing of the penalties imposed on foreign lorry drivers so that they are more proportionate to the number of foreign lorry drivers on our roads? The figures given in the regulatory impact assessment suggest that the number of prosecutions against foreign drivers is minute: there were just seven cases, with 10 offences, from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 compared with 7,835 prosecutions against non-foreign drivers. That is a wholly disproportionate way of dealing with the matter, considering the number of offences of which foreign drivers are guilty. If we give the Government these powers, how soon will they be implemented?

John Thurso: We are broadly content with the clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify one part of it. Subsections (6)(b) and (10)(b) of new section 90C both refer to refunds to be made when a deposit has been taken and some of the amount is required to be applied for a fine. Subsection (6)(a) says that the Secretary of State must
''apply so much of the payment as does not exceed the amount of the fixed penalty in or towards payment of the fixed penalty''. 
Subsection (6)(b) deals with the refund. Its wording caught my eye over the weekend. It says that the Secretary of State must 
''take the appropriate steps to make any appropriate refund to the person.'' 
It would have been possible to phrase that by saying simply, ''refund so much of the payment as exceeds the amount specified in (a)''. That would have been absolutely clear. The amount needed for the fine would be taken under paragraph (a) and the rest would be given back under paragraph (b).

Paul Stinchcombe: Is not that exactly the definition of ''the appropriate refund'' given in new section 90C(12)?

John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to precisely that point. Will the Minister confirm that what will be refunded is the difference  between the two amounts, and there is no latitude for excessive charging, administrative costs or all the other things that might arise?

David Jamieson: The hon. Member for Christchurch went round in a wonderful circle when speaking to his amendments. He started by asking why those penalties should apply to the good, upstanding citizens of this country. The truth is, of course, that they will not. People who provide an address and adequate information to a police or enforcement officer will not be affected. There was then a flash of light in the hon. Gentleman's head, and his constituency case work must have come to mind. He remembered complaints about travellers in and around his constituency, and recalled that there are UK citizens who do not have a fixed address, and against whom, currently, the powers of the police are not always adequate. The clause gives the police the power to impose a penalty deposit on such a person, who may well be a UK citizen but who cannot or will not provide an adequate address.
In some cases the provision may mean that, if the person does not pay the penalty, the vehicle can be impounded so that they are prevented from moving until they have paid. Whether they are UK citizens or foreign drivers is neither here nor there. We should take action against those who currently slip through the net. The hon. Gentleman presented a wonderful argument which went round in a circle; he asked questions and then answered them, which was very helpful to me.

Christopher Chope: It is one of the frustrations of not being in government that we must both raise and answer questions from the Opposition Benches. One question that the Minister has not answered is whether the provision applies only to commercial vehicles.

David Jamieson: There are many hazards and frustrations of being in opposition. I have been there, as have one or two of my hon. Friends.

Christopher Chope: And will be in future.

David Jamieson: Well, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that some of the hazards that he mentioned will be with him a little longer—unless, of course, he wants to follow the example of some of his hon. Friends and move to this side of the Committee.

David Kidney: There are limits.

David Jamieson: I am told that the parliamentary Labour party is full, but the hon. Member for Christchurch can go on the waiting list if he wants to.
Initially the measure is aimed at commercial drivers, because, as hon. Members know, they may not commit the majority of offences but, when they do commit them—and particularly when they are involved in collisions—they tend to be among the more serious events. They tend to happen on our main trunk and motorway network. HGVs are disproportionately represented in the figures for serious incidents involving death and injury. I am afraid to say that a  worrying number of foreign vehicles are involved in those figures too. The majority drivers are safe and the majority of vehicles are good, but those that are bad are represented in the figures. We are tackling the problem first where it is worst. 
The hon. Gentleman asked when the provision will come into force. Assuming that the Bill obtains Royal Assent, there will be a period of consultation, which we will be obliged to undertake, followed by secondary legislation. I anticipate that if the timetable goes well that will certainly happen before the end of the year. It would then be up to us to decide how in future we might extend the provision to other vehicles. 
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross raised the question of the refund. I assure him that that would be the excess, if appropriate, paid over any fine. If the fine subsequently turned out to be less than the deposit there would be a refund. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) pointed out, proposed new section 90C(12) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 defines ''the appropriate refund''. It is, obviously, the difference between one amount and the other, and that had to be included in the Bill. I hope that that has been helpful.

Christopher Chope: The Minister said that the Government will decide in due course on the applicability of the provision. If he cannot answer the question now, will he write to us before Report to let us know the Government's specific intentions for the application of the deposit scheme to non-commercial vehicles being used in this country by people without a fixed address, particularly Travellers, the example that I gave?

David Jamieson: I will try to give an indication to the Committee and the House on that subject as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Power to require specimens of breath at roadside or at hospital etc.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 11, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
 '(4A) Leave out subsection (1)(a) and insert— 
 ''(1) to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device approved by the Secretary of State and operated by a trained operative in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.''.'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 54, in clause 11, page 14, line 20, at end insert— 
 ''(2AA) For the purposes of this section a breath test shall not be relevant if it is administered within 20 minutes of alcohol having been consumed or would have been so administered but for a failure to co-operate with it.''. 
No. 56, in clause 11, page 15, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(6A) In section 8 of the Act (choice of specimens of breath), leave out subsection (2) and insert—
 ''(2) If the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath the person who provided it shall be asked by a constable if he wishes it to be replaced by such specimen as may be required under section 7(4) of this Act and if he then provides such a specimen neither specimen of breath shall be used.''.'.

Christopher Chope: The amendments stand in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). [Interruption.] My name is on the previous page of the amendment paper. I think that there is a problem with the printers not separating out amendments and keeping them intact on one page. However, that is by the by, and I accept responsibility for the drafting of the amendments.
We are talking about the incredibly serious offence of driving with excess alcohol in one's system or while unfit through drink or drugs. It is absolutely essential that we bring to justice as many of those who are guilty of such an offence as possible. That is why we keep reminding the Government that the best method of enforcement is having more police officers involved in traffic duties. The other side of the coin is that because this is a serious offence, the penalties are serious and can involve loss of livelihood. It is vital that the procedures are seen to be fair, that they are easy to understand and that they cannot be used vaguely or oppressively. 
The amendments emanate largely from correspondence that I have received from a member of the public who says that he has been working in citizens advice bureaux for many years and has seen evidence, from people who have come to him for help, of an increasing laxity in the behaviour of police in breath-testing procedures. It is difficult for someone who feels that the full procedures have not been gone through, but has never encountered such a procedure before, to know whether the police have complied with the requirements. Some requirements are by custom and practice but are not set out in legislation. For example, the 20-minute test in amendment No. 54 is a requirement laid down by the manufacturers of the equipment, but there is case law showing that if the police do not comply with that 20-minute requirement, it does not vitiate the whole procedure. 
The clause simplifies the procedure so that almost all of it can be carried out at the roadside. I have no concern about that, but because it would be a continuous procedure at the roadside, it could be confusing for those who are asked to comply with it because they are suspected of driving under the influence of drink or drugs. That is why I tabled amendment No. 53, which would make it clear that the device used at the roadside had to be used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, by somebody who was trained and in accordance with the requirements of the law. 
There are currently a limited number of such devices at police stations, and the person operating them is usually fully trained and familiar with the equipment and the manufacturer's instructions. The calibration of the machines is vital to ensuring that justice results  from the tests carried out on them. I understand from the briefing that no such machines have received the Secretary of State's approval for mobile use, but when they have they will be transported by road, set up and used, powered by batteries and other temporary equipment. It is therefore vital that they are used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and by somebody trained in their use. With amendment No. 53, I want to ensure that the Government recognise that going for a more convenient option of including both stages of the test at the roadside should not result in any diminution of the requirement that the equipment is rigorously used and tested in advance. 
Amendment No. 54 deals with the 20-minute requirement. It is not currently enshrined in law, and, as I said, there is case law to suggest that a failure to allow a 20-minute gap between the last drink and the administration of the breath test does not vitiate the whole procedure. One can understand the thinking behind that. The initial breath test will be followed by another test carried out at the police station, and there will be a time lapse between the two. It is most unlikely that the evidential test carried out at the police station would be less than 20 minutes after the arrest of the person at the roadside. One can understand why the courts have taken a slightly relaxed view about the 20-minute test, and said that if it is not complied with the truth will emerge because when the person suspected of driving under the influence of drink or drugs gets to the police station, they will be subject to another test in the proper circumstances. 
My concern is that with the compressed procedure provided for in this clause, the 20-minute issue becomes that much more significant. If the initial test is carried out almost immediately after someone has emerged from the pub, having recently had a drink, it is possible that the second test—the evidential test—will be carried out very soon after the last drink has been taken. If that happens at the moment, it is not regarded as vitiating the procedure, although if the person has consumed alcohol shortly before taking the test, its accuracy will obviously be in doubt. The amendment would include the requirement in the Bill. I have always been in favour of as much clarity as possible, and I am interested to hear the Minister's response to my suggestion. 
Amendment No. 56 deals with the choice of breath specimens and is again designed to ensure that there is no possibility of confusion. At present, if the second, evidential breath test shows that the person is within the margins of the unlawful limit—between 35 and 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath—the person can request a urine or blood test to double check the accuracy of the result, the decision as to which being taken by the police officer. 
At present the request must be made by the person being accused. The amendment would ensure that where an evidential breath test showed that there was no more than 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, the onus would be on the constable—I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that I use the phrase advisedly—to ask the person  concerned whether he wanted it to be replaced by a blood or urine specimen, as would be required under section 7(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 
Another complaint that has been made to me is that it is often not made clear to an accused person that he has the option of asking for a blood or urine sample in those circumstances. As it is hard to prove after the event whether it has been made clear, and as it is much better to be safe than sorry, why should it not be incumbent on the police officer present when the evidential breath test is taken to say to the individual concerned, ''In light of the readings, you can choose whether to have a blood or urine sample''? 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. The Committee consisted of the following Members: